Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Annual Report

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Andy Burnham) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain—2004 is being published as a Command Paper today. Copies will be placed in the House Library.
	This annual report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to keep Parliament informed about the use of animals for experimental or other purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. The format and content of future reports has recently being reviewed by the Animals Procedures Committee and I hope to be able to respond to its report shortly.
	The report shows an overall increase over last year of 2.3 per cent in the number of procedures undertaken. The total number of procedures was 2.85 million, an increase of 63,000 over the previous year. Although this is the highest total since 1992, it does not necessarily signal an established upward trend in animal use. The overall level of scientific procedures is determined by a number of factors, including the economic climate and global trends in scientific endeavour.
	Non-toxicological procedures accounted for about 85 per cent of the procedures carried out in 2004. These included studies for fundamental biological or applied research in human and veterinary medicine, with the main areas of use being for immunological studies, pharmaceutical research and development, and cancer research.
	Procedures for toxicological purposes accounted for the remaining 15 per cent of all procedures. About 70 per cent of these were for testing the safety and efficacy of new drugs and medicines.
	In keeping with previous years, those procedures which used mice or rats (or other rodents) were the great majority at 85 per cent. Those using fish amounted to 7 per cent and those using birds, 4 per cent. The total of all procedures using dogs, cats, horses and non-human primates—that is, those species offered special protection by the Act—was less than 1 per cent of the total.
	Genetically normal animals were used in 1,673,000 regulated procedures, representing 59 per cent of all procedures for 2004 (compared with 63 per cent in 2003 and 84 per cent in 1995). Genetically modified animals (nearly all rodents) were used in 914,000 regulated procedures representing, 32 per cent of all procedures for 2004 (compared with 27 per cent in 2003 and 8 per cent in 1995).
	These trends have been evident over recent years, reflecting the changing balance in use between genetically normal and modified animals, and are set to continue as advances in genetic science open up new and promising avenues of research.
	It is important to point out that the Home Office, as regulatory authority under the 1986 Act, does not control the overall amount of animal research and testing which takes place, but seeks to minimise the numbers of animals used for justifiable purposes. We ensure, in carrying out our licensing function, that the provisions of the Act are rigorously applied in each programme of work. All animal use must be justified, and for each particular programme of work, the number of animals used and the suffering caused must be minimised.
	Further information on the annual statistics 2004 may be found on the Home Office website at www.scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/.

Armed Forces: War Pensions

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Don Touhig) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2006 are set out in the tables below. The annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2006 will take place from the week beginning 10 April.
	
		War Pensions Rates
		
			  Rates Rates 
			 (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown) 2005 2006 
			 WAR PENSIONS 
			 Disablement Pension (100 per cent rates) 
			 officer (£ per annum) 6,851.00 7,034.00 
			 other ranks 131.30 134.80 
			 Age allowances 
			 40–50 per cent 8.80 9.05 
			 over 50 per cent but not over 70 per cent 13.50 13.85 
			 over 70 per cent but not over 90 per cent 19.25 19.75 
			 over 90 per cent 27.00 27.70 
			 Disablement gratuity 
			 specified minor injury (minimum) 835.00 858.00 
			 specified minor injury (maximum) 6,243.00 6,412.00 
			 unspecified minor injury (minimum) 345.00 354.00 
			 unspecified minor injury (maximum) 8,118.00 8,337.00 
			 Unemployability allowance 
			 Personal 81.15 83.35 
			 adult dependency increase 45.70 46.95 
			 increase for first child 10.60 10.90 
			 increase for subsequent children 12.50 12.85 
			 Invalidity allowance 
			 higher rate 16.05 16.50 
			 middle rate 10.30 10.60 
			 lower rate 5.15 5.30 
			 Constant attendance allowance 
			 exceptional rate 99.20 101.80 
			 intermediate rate 74.40 76.35 
			 full-day rate 49.60 50.90 
			 part-day rate 24.80 25.45 
			 Comforts allowance 
			 higher rate 21.20 21.80 
			 lower rate 10.60 10.90 
			 Mobility supplement 47.25 48.55 
			 Allowance for lowered standard of   occupation (maximum) 49.52 50.84 
			 Therapeutic earnings limit 4,056.00 4,212.00 
			 Exceptionally severe disablement   allowance 49.60 50.90 
			 Severe disablement occupational   allowance 24.80 25.45 
			 Clothing allowance (£ per annum) 169.00 174.00 
			 Education allowance (£ per annum)   (maximum) 120.00 120.00 
			 War widow(er)s' pension (further   details in schedule WWP)  
			 Widow(er)s—private 99.50 102.20 
			 Widow(er)s' (other ranks) 99.50 102.20 
			 Widow(er)—Officer (£ pa maximum) 6,132.00 6,298.00 
			 Childless widow(er)s' u-40   (other ranks) 23.85 24.49 
			 Childless widow(er)s' u-40   (Officer maximum £s pa) 6,132.00 6,298.00 
			 Supplementary Pension 66.62 68.42 
			 Age allowance 
			 (a)   age 65 to 69 11.40 11.70 
			 (b)   age 70 to 79 21.80 22.40 
			 (c)   age 80 and over 32.35 33.20 
			 Children's allowance 
			 Increase for first child 15.65 16.05 
			 Increase for subsequent children 17.50 17.95 
			 Orphan's pension 
			 Increase for first child 17.80 18.30 
			 Increase for subsequent children 19.55 20.10 
			 Unmarried dependant living as spouse   (maximum) 97.15 99.85 
			 Rent allowance (maximum) 37.55 38.55 
			 Adult orphan's pension (maximum) 76.45 78.50

Bribery Law Reform

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to announce the publication today of the Government's consultation paper on reform of the laws of bribery.
	Although the crime of bribery remains relatively rare in the UK, it is vital that we, through our actions and principles, remain vigilant and promote high standards of propriety at home and abroad. Modernising the criminal law plays an important role in carrying out this aim.
	The existing law on bribery, which comprises the common law offence of bribery and a variety of statutory offences dating as far back as 1889, is fragmented, outdated and complex.
	The Government sought to address problems in the existing law when we published the draft Corruption Bill; however, since the publication of the report of the Joint Committee, which gave the Bill pre-legislative scrutiny in 2003, opinion has been divided on the way in which the offences should be formulated.
	The purpose of this consultation is to seek a new consensus on the way forward. We are conscious that a good deal of criticism of the draft Bill came from those most exercised by the problem of bribery overseas. We therefore also seek views on a new proposal to enhance Serious Fraud Office powers to tackle bribery of foreign public officials.
	The consultation, which contains proposals that will apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will run until 1 March 2006 and I look forward to receiving views from a wide range of stakeholders. The Government are committed to reforming the law and today's consultation is a step towards delivering that commitment.
	Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The consultation paper is also available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/haveyoursay/current-consultations/.

Children: Information Sharing Index

Lord Adonis: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Ruth Kelly) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am announcing today a step change in the support the Government provide to front-line professionals in children's services by leading the implementation of an information sharing index.
	The information sharing index is a key element of the Every Child Matters programme to transform children's services by supporting more effective prevention and early intervention. Its goal is to improve outcomes and the experience of public services for all children, young people and families. Better information sharing is essential for early and effective intervention. The index will provide a tool to support better communication among practitioners across education, health, social care and youth offending. It will allow them to contact one another more easily and quickly, so they can share information about children who need services or about whose welfare they are concerned.
	Our decision about the way forward with the index has been informed by substantial input from, and consultation with, many front-line practitioners and managers across a wide range of children's services organisations. We have also drawn extensively on the experience of local index approaches run under existing legislation by trailblazer local authorities. Our conclusions respond to what stakeholders have told us they need to be able to do their jobs more effectively and take account of views expressed on the design of the index.
	The index will be a simple basic online system containing:
	minimal identifying information for each child; name, address, date of birth, gender, and contact details for parents or carers. Each child will also have a unique identifying number. In almost all cases this will be a scrambled version of their child reference number (which all children are allocated when a claim for child benefit is made);
	contact details for their educational setting and GP practice and for other practitioners or services working with them; and
	where a practitioner judges it appropriate and necessary, an indicator showing that they wished to be contacted by other practitioners because they have relevant information to share, are taking action, or have undertaken an assessment in relation to that child.
	No case information will be held on the index. Children, young people, or, where appropriate, their parents or carers will be able to ask to see their records and to challenge any inaccuracies, in accordance with data protection legislation.
	There will be a single central index with its data partitioned into 150 parts, one relating to each local authority in England. A central index will ensure that the system works for children who move areas or who access services from more than one area. Partitioning the data will ensure local authorities take the lead in maintaining the accuracy of the data for children living in their area.
	To avoid double-inputting of data and to ensure high standards of accuracy, information on the index will be drawn from and updated through existing systems. It will use proven technology.
	Technical access to the index will be either through the practitioner's existing case management systems, via a web link, or, where an approved practitioner has no access to appropriate IT facilities, via another approved user who does have IT access.
	The Government are determined that the index will be as secure as possible, and will therefore ensure it complies with rigorous security standards. Access to it will be granted only to authorised users who have undergone appropriate checks, including those provided by the Criminal Records Bureau. Practitioner use of the index will be audited to ensure information is accessed only where it is necessary for practitioners to do so, and so guard against inappropriate access by authorised users.
	The Government are today making available a report on local authority trailblazer experience. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
	The experience of the trailblazers identifies significant benefits in the effectiveness of services. These include improved access to information to inform action, better identification of children not receiving universal services, and better multi-agency communication and information exchange. Scope for significant efficiency gains has also been demonstrated from time saved by practitioners on such tasks as identifying other services involved with a child, tracking down and contacting the individual practitioners involved, and making wasted referrals to services already involved with a child. These savings have been quantified as worth more than £88 million per annum across England. We do not intend to reduce funding for children's services, but instead to enable savings realised to be reinvested in more and better services for children and more effective use of staff time. We anticipate that this will enhance staff satisfaction with their jobs.
	The Government will commit substantial resources to the index. One-off implementation costs will be an estimated £224 million over the next three years—this includes the costs of adapting systems that will supply the data to the index and adapting the day-to-day systems used by practitioners so they can access the index from their own systems. It also includes the cost of ensuring the original data supplied to the index are accurate, that there are robust systems in place to ensure security and that staff are trained to use the index properly. Operating costs, thereafter, will be £41 million per year. Most of these costs will fund the additional staff needed to ensure the ongoing security, accuracy and audit of the index. Both set-up and running costs will be funded by central government, so that the costs to local authorities do not form a pressure on the council tax.
	Our plan is that a technically robust, secure and accurate index is available to support children's services across England by the end of 2008. To enable this to be achieved we plan to publish draft regulations under Section 12 of the Children Act 2004, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. An initial set of regulations in spring 2006 will provide the necessary vires to allow trials to take place for the creation of the initial records. We then plan to publish in autumn 2006 the main regulations to govern the operation of the index. We will consult publicly on draft regulations in the summer/autumn of 2006.
	Implementation will be led by a dedicated project team within DfES. The project team will continue to work closely with local authorities, users and other stakeholders to ensure that developments continue to be relevant and lead to more effective practice. Building on the current knowledge gained by the local authority trailblazers, the project team will directly and actively seek the views of children, young people and families and will ensure those views are taken into account as we develop the index.

Department for Transport: Autumn Performance Report

Lord Davies of Oldham: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Alistair Darling) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have today published my department's autumn performance report for 2005. Copies have been laid before Parliament and placed in the House Libraries.
	The report sets out the department's progress made on our seven public service agreement targets over the past six months since the publication of the annual report in June 2005.

Northern Ireland: Water and Sewerage Services

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Shaun Woodward) has made the following Statement.
	Today I have placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the consultation report on the integrated impact assessment (IIA) of the Government's proposals for the reform of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland, known as the water reform programme. This also includes the final equality impact assessment and final regulatory impact assessment.
	Consultation on the draft IIA took place from 29 November 2004 until 4 March 2005. As part of the IIA process a number of impact assessments were carried out on the policy proposals, drawing upon available quantitative and qualitative evidence. Assessments carried out included human rights, health, equality, new targeting social need (TSN), regulatory impacts and rural proofing.
	The consultation report I am publishing today summarises and responds to the comments made on the various IIA impact assessments and on the water reform proposals generally.
	The Government have listened carefully to what has been said throughout the consultation period and have noted the substantial level of opposition to the proposals, particularly the introduction of domestic water and sewerage charges. However, the Government have heard nothing to suggest there is a realistic alternative to the water reform programme, which is needed urgently to:
	improve the delivery, efficiency and quality of service currently provided to the public in ways that would not be possible while water service remains in central government;
	provide a sustained and reliable means of financing future investment in water and sewerage services; and
	release resources for allocation to other public services—up to £300 million by the end of the decade, in addition to the borrowing power in the reinvestment and reform initiative which is currently delivering £200 million of capital investment in Northern Ireland's public services every year.
	The Government have not heard a realistic alternative to increasing what people in Northern Ireland pay in local taxes and charges, compared with the position in Great Britain, as a vital step that must be taken if Northern Ireland is to have world class public services. In Great Britain average household contributions (including water bills) are £1,200 to £1,300, whereas in Northern Ireland they are £550. The Government therefore remain committed to the introduction of the water reform programme but, in response to the consultation, with revised or new policy in two key areas.
	The strongest criticism of the original proposals was that the new domestic charges would be neither fair nor affordable, particularly for those on low incomes.
	The Government understand these criticisms. The introduction of the new charges has been deferred until April 2007, partly to allow more time to ensure change is properly managed. However in view of their impact, the Government still intend to phase the new charges in over a three-year period, with households paying one-third of the full charge in 2007–08, two-thirds in 2008–09 and the full amount in 2009–10. The changes to the non-domestic charging regime will be introduced on the same basis.
	Water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland are not yet of as high a standard as those in England, Scotland and Wales, reflecting the lower levels of investment over many years and lower levels of efficiency. The gap in standards is being closed rapidly in Northern Ireland with new investment of £1.1 billion in the period 2003 to 2008. However, in recognition of the gaps that remain, and the burden that the introduction of the new charges may cause, the Government intend to set the new household charges during the three-year period to 2009–10 to achieve the average level of charges that will apply in England and Wales in 2009–10. A detailed charging scheme will be published in late 2006. A first periodic price determination conducted by the new economic regulator is planned to be concluded in 2009. This determination will set tariffs for 2010–11 onwards.
	The three-year phasing-in period to 2009–10 will provide an opportunity for the government-owned company (to be known as Northern Ireland Water Limited) to continue the delivery of the ongoing investment programmes that should bring services up to necessary standards both in terms of water quality and waste-water treatment. Progress has also been made in the past three years to improve efficiency levels. However there remains a gap in comparison with performance in England, Scotland and Wales, reflecting the exposure of companies in Great Britain to commercial pressures and their greater freedoms and flexibilities. The three-year transitional period will allow the company time to deliver a demanding efficiency programme to bring down substantially the cost of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland in line with best practice in Great Britain. This will be a major and testing challenge for the new company and its workforce.
	A strategic financial review has been completed to provide advice to government on issues such as the company's financial structure, efficiency, corporate governance and regulatory arrangements. This review, together with the Government's conclusions on its recommendations, will be published shortly.
	The Government consider that phasing charges in over three years, and setting them at levels equivalent to the average in England and Wales during this transitional period, is fair to the people of Northern Ireland and is also fair to other taxpayers and water charge-payers elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
	The greatest concern expressed during the consultation was that the new domestic charges would not be affordable and would create hardship among those on low incomes. To ease the transition, and in recognition of the relatively high levels of poverty and disadvantage in Northern Ireland, the Government's broad objective will be to ensure that low-income households, particularly pensioner households, should not need to spend more than 3 per cent of their income on water and sewerage services. To achieve this, a new affordability tariff will be available for those households who are eligible. This tariff will be set at a level equivalent to 3 per cent of the single person's pension credit guarantee as updated by Parliament each year.
	Eligibility for the scheme will be determined through the social security system and not through any new form of means testing. All those who are entitled to housing benefit, rate rebate or the special rate relief scheme currently being developed within the review of rating policy in Northern Ireland will automatically be entitled to the affordability tariff. The cost of the affordability tariff scheme will be met from existing Northern Ireland public expenditure rather than other customers and this scheme will be reviewed after three years.
	The other area where the Government are announcing new policy is on domestic metering. The IIA consultation exercise revealed strong views in support of domestic metering but also significant opposition to it. While there are very good environmental reasons for metering, the high cost of metering and the issue of affordability of water charges raise real concerns. Many argued strongly that universal or voluntary metering would penalise large and lower income families.
	In recognition of these conflicting views the Government are setting an objective of a managed long-term transition to widespread domestic metering as a means of meeting long-term environmental and sustainability objectives. This recognises that it will take time to introduce widespread metering given the costs associated with the installation of large numbers of meters. It also recognises that the introduction of metering will need to be managed to mitigate adverse social effects. To avoid these, the affordability tariff scheme should virtually eliminate any significant adverse impact that domestic metering might have had on low-income households. The long-term transition will involve a number of steps.
	In the short term, meters will be offered as an option to pensioner households. In practice this will only benefit pensioner households who are not eligible for the affordability tariff, with implementation at a rate of 2,000 to 3,000 households per month. This will further mitigate the negative equality impact on pensioners from the capital value charging regime. Metered charges should be lower than unmeasured charges for most pensioner households, whose consumption of water is significantly lower than average households. This will particularly benefit the "asset-rich and income poor". Those opting for meters will be able to revert to an unmeasured charge within 12 months;
	meters will be installed in all new properties and first-time connections and billed on that basis as a practical means of reaching the long-term objective of widespread metering—low income protection would be provided on the same basis as for unmeasured customers;
	where a meter is installed in a property, all subsequent occupiers will be subject to metered charges with no option to revert to an unmeasured charge. However, if the new occupants are eligible for low-income protection their protection would be provided on the same basis as for unmeasured customers; and
	the policy would be subject to a review within two years with a view to extending the domestic metering option to further groups from 2009–10, thus making metering more generally available to customers. However, any such proposals would need to be subject to equality impact screening.
	The Government have taken time to listen carefully to the points made in the consultation. It concludes that there is no realistic alternative to introducing domestic water charges and extending the existing non-domestic charging regime. However the Government have amended their policy and are confident that the balanced package of measures announced today will deliver better water and sewerage services, provide benefits to public services generally in Northern Ireland and do so in a way that is fair, affordable and sustainable.
	The publication of the final IIA, and the announcement of these revised and new policies, closes the consultation on the water reform policy proposals. The next step will be to bring forward draft legislation reflecting these proposals. This is planned for spring 2006.

Railways: Potters Bar Derailment

Lord Davies of Oldham: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Alistair Darling) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	On 23 May 2005, in response to a Question from the honourable Member for Hertsmere, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State informed the House that I expected to be in a position to decide whether to hold a public inquiry into the Potters Bar derailment once the Crown Prosecution Service had decided whether to bring prosecutions. On 17 October 2005, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would not be bringing any prosecutions. After careful consideration, I have decided that there should not be a public inquiry into the rail accident at Potters Bar on 10 May 2002 in which seven people died.
	Three investigations into the accident have taken place, by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the British Transport Police and the Rail Standards and Safety Board. The HSE interim reports made recommendations in order to avoid a similar accident in the future and I am satisfied that these recommendations have been acted upon. In addition, the coroner intends to hold a full inquest, which will take place as soon as the necessary arrangements can be put in place. I have agreed, if necessary, to fund his costs.
	I do not therefore believe, on legal or general policy grounds, that it is necessary or appropriate to hold an inquiry in this case, or that such an inquiry would reveal more information on the cause of the accident than is already available.
	The Health and Safety Executive recognises rail safety has improved and, when responsibility for safety enforcement is transferred to the Office of Rail Regulation, it will continue that work. Since the accident, Network Rail, the company that replaced Railtrack, has taken steps to improve maintenance and ended the practice of contracting it out to separate companies. Network Rail now takes direct responsibility for maintenance of the rail network.

Regional Development Agencies

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions (Alun Michael) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have decided to appoint the new board members listed at annexe A and to reappoint the RDA chairs and board members, listed at annexe B. Both new appointments and reappointments will be for a period of three years.
	The new appointments, with the exception of Vanda Murray (NWDA), and all the reappointments, will begin on 14 December 2005. Vanda Murray will take up her appointment, at the Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA), on 1 April 2006. All the appointments will expire on 13 December 2008. I have placed further details of both the new appointments and reappointments in the Library of both Houses. All of them were made in accordance with the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
	Annexe A: New Appointments
	
		
			 RDA Name 
			 East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) Parvin Ali 
			 Stan Crawford 
			 North West Regional Development Agency (NWDA) Vanda Murray 
			 One North East (ONE) Ian Brown 
			  John Shipley 
			 South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) Nigel Costley 
			 Kelvyn Derrick 
			 Jonathon Porritt 
			 Yorkshire Forward (YF) Kath Pinnock 
		
	
	Annexe B: Reappointments
	All reappointments commence on 14 December 2005
	
		
			 RDA Name 
			 Advantage West Midlands (AWM) Richard Hyde 
			  Nick Paul (Chair) 
			 East of England Development Agency (EEDA) Stephen Castle 
			 George Kieffer 
			 Bryony Rudkin 
			 East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) Neville Jackson 
			 Ross Willmott 
			 North West Regional Development Agency (NWDA) Marie Rimmer 
			 Maureen Williams 
			 One North East (ONE) Kevin Rowan 
			  Christine Smith 
			 South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA) Jim Brathwaite (Chair) 
			  Poul Christensen 
			  Sarah Hohler 
			  Keith House 
			  Terry Mills 
			  John Peel 
			 South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) Judith Reynolds 
			 Harry Studholme 
			 Eric Thomas 
			 Juliet Williams (Chair) 
			 Yorkshire Forward (YF) Julie Kenny 
			  John Napier

Southern Africa

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Since my Statement of 11 October, further assessments in southern Africa have identified an additional 1.4 million people in Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique likely to face food shortages in the period up to April 2006. This brings the total numbers in need of assistance to over 11.4 million in Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. This could rise as further reassessments take place, particularly in Zimbabwe.
	The Scale of the Problem
	Country assessments are carried out by national committees and are co-ordinated regionally by the Southern African Development Community (SADC). They consider whether households will be able to access their normal food requirements between harvests. Assessment reports can be found at the website of the Southern African Development Community at www.sadc.int. The figures include those with potential food shortages ranging from 1 per cent to over 80 per cent of their normal food requirements.
	The breakdown by country is as follows:
	Zimbabwe: The national assessment was formally released on 17 November and indicates that 2.88 million people will face food shortages, assuming stable maize prices. However, maize prices have risen significantly and, while hyper-inflation in Zimbabwe makes it difficult to assess affordability, it is possible that as many as 5 million people face food shortages. The underlying causes remain a combination of erratic rains, HIV/AIDS and bad governance. The World Food Programme, with support from DfID, has been providing food aid for 1 million vulnerable people, mainly children, and plans to scale this up to cover 3 million people over the next few months, and other donors are distributing to smaller groups. The World Food Programme has also now signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government guaranteeing humanitarian access and freedom from political interference in its humanitarian operations through the role of NGOs as implementing partners.
	DfID has committed over £1 million in response to the Government of Zimbabwe's forced clearance of unauthorised dwellings earlier this year, Operation Murambatsvina ("clean up"), which displaced or destroyed the livelihoods of 700,000 people. The Zimbabwean Government have now reversed their refusal to accept international assistance to provide shelter. However, the UN and donors have not yet agreed with the Government on acceptable and equitable mechanisms for providing that aid. In the mean time, UN and non-governmental agencies continue to operate relief programmes reaching 40,000 affected households, including those affected by HIV and AIDS, with food, blankets, medical care and other essential items. These issues were being discussed in Zimbabwe during the visit there this week by the UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, Jan Egeland.
	Malawi: The latest assessment indicates that up to 4.85 million people face food shortages. The Government and the World Food Programme have started a co-ordinated emergency programme targeting the 2.7 million most vulnerable people and plans are in place to reach all of those facing food shortages in the period leading up to the harvest in March/April 2006. A UN appeal for $88 million was launched in September covering food aid and distribution of seeds and fertiliser. This was later revised downwards to $74 million, of which $32 million has been pledged so far, with a further $68 million contributed outside the appeal. The UK Government contributed £10.2 million before the appeal was launched and £5 million in October in response to the appeal. We will contribute a further £3 million to help respond to the increased needs this week, bringing our total contribution to £18.2 million (about $32 million) making the UK the largest contributor to the relief effort in Malawi this year.
	Zambia: The latest assessment indicates that 1.4 million people in the southern, western and eastern provinces will face food shortages before the next harvest in February and March 2006. The Government have now requested assistance. Food distributions by the World Food Programme, the Government of Zambia and an NGO consortium are increasing in response to this and the UK has this week committed an additional £4 million.
	Mozambique: The latest assessment indicates that about 800,000 people will face food shortages, mostly in the south of the country. The World Food Programme continues to distribute food aid to some of those worst affected and the Government have established a range of safety nets, such as food for work programmes and free or subsidised seed distribution so that the poorest households have enough seeds to plant for next year.
	Lesotho: Assessments in Lesotho have not changed. About 440,000 people could face food shortages. These are virtually all in households that suffer from chronic food insecurity. The Government are responding through safety nets, including a recently introduced old age pension.
	Swaziland: Assessments in Swaziland have not changed. About 225,000 people could face food shortages in households that suffer from chronic food insecurity. As in Lesotho, other responses to chronic hunger, apart from food aid, are being encouraged, such as provision of seeds and fertiliser to poorer households.
	What are the UK Government doing?
	In response to this crisis, the UK Government have now allocated over £64 million in humanitarian assistance for the region this year. Some of this has been channelled through UN agencies and some has gone through governments or NGOs. The breakdown of our commitments so far this year is as follows:
	Zimbabwe: £40 million covering relief programmes for up to 3 million people provided through non-government channels, including contributions to the World Food Programme, HIV/AIDS programmes and responses to those affected by Operation Murambatsvina.
	Malawi: Over £18 million towards the Government's emergency food distribution, helping to purchase maize, options on additional maize, seeds, pulses and oil, support to the Government's logistics and early warning capacity, and support to UNICEF for nutritional surveillance and response. The Government of Malawi's planning for the emergency began in March with help from early pledges from the UK.
	Zambia: Up to £3,430,000 for food aid distribution to 200,000 households and other support through the World Food Programme and other agencies, and £1 million to Oxfam for cash transfers to 14,350 households in Western Province. In addition, we will provide £500,000 for nutritional surveillance and preparedness, and £500,000 for emergency seed distribution.
	Mozambique: £235,000 for provision of seeds to drought affected farmers, using the Ministry of Agriculture's drought mitigation plan.
	Lesotho: £350,000 for distribution of seeds and fertilisers and small-scale livestock interventions for affected households.
	Swaziland: £300,000 for distribution of seeds and fertilisers and other necessary help for vulnerable households.
	I am again urging EU partners to respond speedily to these additional needs and remain in contact with the UN on the international community's response.
	The Wider Challenge
	The crisis has reinforced the need to address the high levels of chronic hunger in southern Africa more effectively and take action to reduce the risk of repeated crises affecting the region. I welcome the recent commitment by European Development Ministers—at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 21 and 22 November—to support safety nets for the most vulnerable in Africa as well as commitments by the US Government to help break the cycle of hunger in Africa. I intend to work closely with all partners to address these longer-term issues while continuing to tackle emergency food needs effectively. We will continue to monitor the position closely and be ready to take further action if necessary.